Pramod Kumar Sethi vs Shripad
2023 Latest Caselaw 120 MP

                                   1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT INDORE

                         FA No. 1178 of 2017
          (PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI AND OTHERS Vs SHRIPAD AND OTHERS)



Dated : 03-01-2023
      Shri Abhinav Malhotra, counsel for the appellants.

      Shri V. K. Jain, Senior counsel with Shri Keshav Khandelwal,
counsel for the respondents.

1] Heard on I.A. No.4127 of 2019 which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 94 and 151 of C.P.C. Also heard on I.A. No.4128 of 2019 which is an application for vacating ex-parte interim order and for directions. Both the applications have been filed by the respondents, seeking the following reliefs:-

Prayer in I.A. No.4127 of 2019:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the Appellants may kindly be restrained from encumbering, alienating or otherwise disposing off the suit property in any manner till the final disposal of the appeal."

Prayer in I.A. No.4128 of 2019:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the ex-parte interim order granted by this Hon'ble Court may kindly be vacated and in terms of the provisions of Order 41 CPC and the Appellants may kindly be directed to deposit the entire due amount, which is Rs.1,35,00,000/- up to 19/06/2019 and to continue to deposit the monthly amount of compensation till the disposal of this appeal and the Respondents may kindly be allowed to withdraw the

same."

2] Senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that despite the decree was passed by the trial Court against the appellants that he should deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- till the flats are delivered to the respondents, the appellant has deposited only a sum of Rs.50,64,950/- in the trial Court in terms of the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2017, and the aforesaid amount is also not disbursed to the respondents.

3] Senior counsel has submitted that the final disposal of the appeal is likely to take sufficient long time and thus, the amount so deposited shall be remitted to the respondents. Senior counsel has also submitted that the appellants be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- per month as the appellant has only deposited the sum upto the date on which the appeal was filed and no subsequent amount has been deposited.

4] Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the appeal may be heard expeditiously and he is ready to argue the matter finally. It is further submitted that the sale deed executed between and by the parties has been affirmed by the trial Court and as the appellant has arleady deposited the amount of rupees more than 50 lakhs as directed by this Court, no interference is called for in the interim order passed by this Court on 19.12.2017, as there are judgments to this effect that the any temporary arrangement cannot be stretched to an indefinite period.

5]    Heard.


6]    On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the

record it is found that vide order dated 19.12.2017, the interim order has been passed by this court in the following manner:-

"Till the next date of hearing, subject to deposit of 50% of the decreetal amount within a period of 6 weeks from today as also furnishing security for remaining amount, execution of the decree as against the appellant shall remain stayed."

7] It is also on record, that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellants have already deposited a sum of Rs.50,64,950/- in the trial court. So far as the decree passed by the trial court is concenred, the same reads as under:-

"It is ordered and decreed that:-

oknhx.k dk okn vkaf'kd :i ls izekf.kr fuf.kZr dj oknhx.k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fuEu vk'k; dh oSdfYid vkKfIr iznRr dh tkrh gS 01& oknhx.k] izfroknhx.k ls fookfnr lEifRr ds laca/k esa gq, laO;ogkjksa ds rgr 'krksZa vuq:i izdks"Bksa dk vf/kiR; izkIr ugha gks tkrk ;k i{kdkjksa ds e/; lEifRr dks ysdj dksbZ vU; la'kksf/kr vuqca/k ugha gks tkrs gS] rc rd izfroknhx.k ls 01]08][email protected]& :i;s dh ekfld dh nj ls izfriwfrZ izkIr djus ds la;qDr rkSj ij olwyus ds vf/kdkjh gS] tks izfroknhx.k fu.kZ; fnukad rd dh vof/k rd dh izfriwfrZ ,deq'r nks ekg ds Hkhrj oknhx.k dks djsa] vU;Fkk oknhx.k fu"iknu dk;Zokgh ds ek/;e ls mDr jkf'k fof/kor~ olwyus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA 02& izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, rFkk okn vkaf'kd :i ls izekf.kr gksus ds en~nsutj mHk; i{k viuk&viuk izdj.k O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxs] ftlesa vfHkHkk"kd 'kqYd izekf.kr fd;s tkus ij vFkok rkfydk eqrkfcd tks Hkh de gksa] og fu;e o vkns'k flfoy ds fu;e 523 ds rgr vkKfIr esa tksM+k tkosA"

8] Apparently, the trial court has directed the appellant to pay the rental to the tune of Rs.1,08,000/- per month. which order has been stayed by this court vide the order dated 19.12.2017. In such facts and circumstances of the case, when the final disposal of the appeal is also likely to take sufficiently long time as there are other older appeals also pending before this court, equally important for the litigating parties, considering the fact that the respndents have already parted

with their property in the year 2007 on a promise made by the appellants and till date they are neither compensated nor their property is returned to them, this court is of the view that in such circumstances, the respondents are entitled to receive the amount of Rs.50,64,950/- so deposited by the appellants in compliance of the order dated 19.12.2017. Thus, the I.A. No.4128 of 2019 is partly allowed and it is directed to the trial court to release the amount of Rs.50,64,950/- as deposited by the appellants to the respondents on their furnishing adequate surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. So far as the other part of the relief is concenred, that the appellants be directed to deposit the amount as dircted by the trial court is concerned, this court is not inclined to modify the aforesaid interim order to that extent as the parties' rights have still to be crystilised.

9] So far as IA No.4127 of 2019 is concerned, since the interest of the respondents is already saved u/s.54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, this court is not inclined to allow the said IA, and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Pankaj

Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2023.01.07 14:31:28 +05'30'